Tag: quotas

No promotions whatsoever for men working at Siemens. No matter how hard working, no matter how qualified. Until Siemens’ "voluntary" women quota of 20% is reached. A high ranking Engineer at Siemens told me this in summer 2012.

It does not matter than only 6% of machine and car engineers in Germany are female. It does not matter that women work shorter hours, interrupt their career, and in general choose health and comfort over maximum financial benefits (Warren Farrell).

It is preposterous that political correctness brainwashed our politicians end the general population to think that

women earn 70% of a man’s salary for the SAME work. And businesses stubbornly refuse to be more profitable. Businesses rather forego the financial benefits of hiring and promoting women at 70% of men’s salary. Profit-oriented businesses prefer to pay`40% more to an equally qualified man, just out of spite, so the old boy’s network can discriminate against women. And not one single company has figured out that by hiring only low paid women they could annihilate the competition that stupidly hires expensive men at their higher salary. (see wage gap and Warren Farrell)

So it is only logical that German labor minister van der Leyen states that only gender diverse companies can compete against international competition. Thus the government has to make rules to force businesses to do more rational hiring decisions, and to become more profitable and successful. Business on its own would rather incur losses then hire equally or higher qualified women. Preposterous.

I can only imagine the effect on men’s morale. Imagine highly qualified engineer at Siemens seeing how the rare women engineer, with lower qualification and much less seniority and work experience, gets promoted to the male engineer’s level, and then promoted again to become his superior. Without merit and qualification. All this while the man’s position and salary remains the same.

The European Community is finalizing binding laws to mandate quotas for women.The quotas are meant to force companies to institute flexible work hours and better conciliation of work and family life. Only enforced quotas will force companies to hire and promote women [summarized from 2]

In Germany, the only discussion is if there should be mandatory 40% quotas for women, or if companies were to set their own binding goals for women quotas. Nobody thinks that companies should make their own rational decisions based on merit, on qualification, eagerness to work, ambition. Not on any quotas.

German Family Minister Kristina Schroeder (also CDU), on the other hand, favors a so-called flexi rate. This requires a company to set their own quota levels which they are required to fulfill.

CDU party Economic Council shares Schröder’s position ". Rigid quotas for women put the industry in Germany into unnecessary restraints When only six percent of the engineering and automotive engineers are women, then the automotive and engineering industries can not reach the discussed 40 percent of women in executive bodies" said Kurt J. Lau, spokesman for the council, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The FDP party leadership is against a rigid quota for women. 2

No excuses here that this will be good for companies. When urgent emergency repairs have to be made, the boss is on family friendly work hours. And the subordinates are demoralized, why should they work overtime when the boss is on 35 hour flex time week.

Under debate [in Germany] is a law, that requires that at large companies by 2018 20 per cent of members of supervisory and management boards have to be women. Five years later, the percentage is to rise to 40 percent 3

We are waiting for law proposals, that 40% of elementary school teachers be male, 40 % of garbage collectors and construction helpers be women, and 40% of prisoners be female.

German minister Ursula van der Leyen recently authored the insane comment, that German industry needs women leaders in order to stay competitive world wide. In other words, were it not for big brother government to force enterprise to promote women, companies would act against their own interest and self-destructively would hire men.

Now employers cannot escape equal pay laws by not employing members of the less productive group. Now employers are obliged to hire or promote people into high ranking positions, no matter if they don’t consider them apt for the job, or not optimal for the job. They get promoted just because of their sexual organs (= because they have a vagina). And men at Siemens, deserving of promotion, will get stiffed and passed up, until enough women passed them up to higher pay levels.

Fear of punishing law suits are also a motive for companies to hire too many "disadvantaged" group members.

There is also a video by Friedman how he explains how discrimination, how pay gap are good for social justice. Because with a pay gap, the person who discriminates Is being punished, by having to pay a higher salary.

Of course, in today’s reality this does not happen, because in reality the pay gap is bogus.

In Brazil, political campaigns are in full swing for the upcoming municipal elections. Stupid laws, inspired by political correctness and feminism require parties to have at least 30 % female candidates. 1234

‘Brazilians typical knack for circumventing laws found a brilliant solution to the dearth of females with qualifications and desire to run for office , They convince token women to pose as fake ghost-candidates. These fake female candidates pave the way so that male candidates that actually want to run for office are allowed to do so.

"O Globo" newspaper reports:

These are the first elections where the mandatory 30% quota for women has been reached, with 30.74% of the candidates being women, compared to 21.37% in 2008.

Miraculously, women got more interested in becoming candidates. Or the patriarchy has stopped repressing women’s ambition towards political positions and thus women become liberated

But the numbers, that on one side are showing a change in the political climate of the country, might, in reality, be a strategy to bypass the law: "the use of fake women candidates: women who become candidates simply to fulfill the quotas.

The judge Murilo Kieling, responsible for the registration of candidates in Rio de Janeiro, confirms that the use of "fakes" might be a crime only if the person does not know that she is a candidate.

Frequently these women become candidates in reply to a political party’s request. They don’t even campaign. But a party that indicates a ‘ghost" candidate, a party member that is not even aware of her being a candidate, that party would be committing a crime.

Source: Na busca de votos, O Globo, Sept. 21, 2012

Human-Stupidity Analysis

In order to fulfill the 30% quota requirement, parties find "ghost" candidates, women that even don’t know they are candidates. Or at least women who know they are candidates but do not campaign.

Among the 18 candidates that got less then 40 votes in the 2010 state elections,17 were women. 3

These candidates don’t care about political posts, and nobody votes for them.

Blacks are the only participants in Olympic 100 m running finals, be it men’s or women’s final dashes. We dare to say the obvious, though politically incorrect and taboo.

We tried to search Google about the races (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic) of the finalists, but this is hard to find. The runners here look black. It is not politically correct to mention race, much less to ask why all the finalists are Black. Wikipedia told us

When Blacks are under-represented in academic pursuits, in elite colleges, in top CEO ranks, then automatically discrimination is the presumed culprit. Race and IQ is a taboo topic. So conventional wisdom would deny any relation between race and running ability. In other words, the only acceptable explanation for lack of Whites and Asians is: Whites and Asians must be discriminated against in 100 meter running.

Whites and Asians should demand protective racial quotas. 50% of Olympic finalists should be White and Asians. Just as police officers, CEO’s, students at elite colleges have black quotas. And women in Norway and Sweden have quotas for CEO’s and politicians.

All 2012 Olympic 100m dash finalist will be black. How can we make such a racist prediction?

The fastest non-black man in the world, European champion (Christophe Lemaitre) decided to skip the 100 m run. 9 Olympic participants run faster then Lemaitre in 100meters. He has no chance for a medal in 100 m, while he has been #4 this year in 200 meters.

In the last decades, Olympic finals and semifinals in 100 m running dashes consisted (almost?) exclusively of Black men and women.

Conventional wisdom teaches us that race is only skin deep. Gender and race are socially constructed. If there are more men then women in top CEO positions, then this is due to discrimination by the evil patriarchy.If Blacks are underrepresented in top Universities, it is due to the never-ending legacy of 19th century slavery.

Equally, the lack of Whites and Asians in the 100 m Olympic finals must be due to discrimination. As everyone knows, all races are equal. Actually, race does not exist. Check this playlist of 25 100m races . I saw one lone white man among all the Blacks. Even Asian games and European championships consist largely of Blacks.

One woman among the finest 106 three star restaurant chefs. Anne Sophie Pic was groomed by both a 3 star father and grandfather. Only 10 women overall earned stars, among approximately 2500 Michelin starred restaurants.

Glass ceiling in cooking?

Are women prevented from cooking? Prevented from opening their own restaurant to make it to fame? Or does Michelin’s female director discriminate against women in their rating? How does the evil patriarchy prevent women from becoming a top cook?

Most woman in the world, but not many men, learn how to cook. So it can not be for lack of female practitioners. It is alleged, but in no way proven, that dearth of female practitioners is the cause of lack of female success in chess, snooker, darts. In tennis the reason is probably the lack of athletic prowess in women, which does not prevent women from earing more in Wimbledon tennis, and for getting promoted as firemen (ahem firefighters) with equal pay in spite of lowered standards in physical fitness which hampers woman’s capacity to lug victims out of harm’s way.

Anyone who can name a field where women out-do men in the very top echelon, please speak up in the comment section.

The Michelin guide selects the best kitchen chefs, the best cooks in the world.

The guide awards one to three stars to a small number of restaurants of outstanding quality. One star indicates a "very good cuisine in its category", a two-star ranking represents "excellent cuisine, worth a detour," and three stars are awarded to restaurants offering "exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey". A three-star Michelin ranking is rare. As of late 2009, there were 26 three-star restaurants in France, and only 81 in the world. Michelin Guide | Wikipedia

Women are actually moving up, from total insignificance to a scant percent. This improvement could be due to some affirmative action or rating biased in favor of women. Or do modern women work harder, work like men? (See Warren Farrell).

Evolution equipped men with larger variance on almost all traits like intelligence and math ability 234. This is due to the fact that in the EEA almost all women, but only the top men procreated and had offspring. So men (red curve in graph) take greater risks and are thus over-represented on the top (CEO, Nobel prize, world champions, and top cooks) and on the bottom (homeless, retarded, criminal). Compared to women (blue curve) that cluster towards the middle.

This is why quotas on the top are inherently unjust, in spite of the world’s politicians having been brain washed by feminist ideology. Interestingly, even in Norway, where women have mandatory 40% quotas on company boards, these board elect CEOs that are mostly male.

Women’s snooker has always been a contentious subject; the sad fact that there has never been a woman player ranked in the top thirty two seems to prove the general view that “snooker is not there game”. This is a nice way of saying “women can’t play snooker”.

There have been many and various reasons given as to why women can not match the men in this field of sport. The first reason is the ratio of male players to female players in all tournaments; in fact it is the only sound reason known but still partly an excuse, there has to be an obvious or simple explanation.

Woman competitors in tennis, golf, cricket, athletics; all concede they are inferior to men (in strength) by accepting a rules change for there benefit, but in snooker there is no strength advantage, nor is there any reason for a condescending rule to make lady snooker players feel inferior.^

No woman in the top 30 in snooker? As we know, gender is socially constructed. There is no reason why women would perform worse at snooker then men. Therefore, to right past injustice, the blatant discrimination by the patriarchy, women should get quotas in the top 30 snooker rankings.

Let us enforce 40% quotas, like in Europe’s boardrooms 012. This would require 12 women to be promoted into the top 30 snooker players. (please excuse our sarcasm)

But what most prevents women from reaching the boardroom, say bosses and headhunters, is lack of hands-on experience of a firm’s core business. Too many women go into functional roles such as accounting, marketing or human resources early in their careers rather than staying in the mainstream, driving profits. 3,

In sports like Tennis, chess, snooker there are objective criteria of a person’s performance. So it is ridiculous to demand to force women into the top 30 ranks, if they objectively don’t fulfill the requirements.

It does not matter why! Be it for innate deficiencies, be it for lack of interest, lack of breadth of the player basis. It does not matter, they don’t perform and thus deservedly are not in the top 30. In chess, there is only one woman in the top 100. In Tennis women painstakingly avoid competing against men, except against aging ex-champions.

In top management there are no such unassailably objective criteria, and thus it is not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt if women are put into these jobs unjustly. Though Warren Farrell made a pretty strong point towards explaining why women deservedly rarely make it into the best paid top positions.